About Me

I was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator and am now a journalist. I am the author of three New York Times bestselling books -- "How Would a Patriot Act" (a critique of Bush executive power theories), "Tragic Legacy" (documenting the Bush legacy), and With Liberty and Justice for Some (critiquing America's two-tiered justice system and the collapse of the rule of law for its political and financial elites). My fifth book - No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the US Surveillance State - will be released on April 29, 2014 by Holt/Metropolitan.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Reply to Jonathan Cook

Dear Jonathan –

Thanks for the kind words and (excluding your headline) the
thoughtful critique. I’ve long been a fan of your work as well, but in this
case, you have profoundly misunderstood and misinterpreted my views. I’m not interested
in ascribing blame, as I’ll be happy to concede that the fault may lay with my
having unclearly expressed myself in a Skype interview, but I instead want to
make clear what I do and do not actually think on these matters.

In sum, I do not remotely deny that structural and corporate
constraints at establishment media organizations severely constrict the range
of acceptable views that can be aired. I’ve made that very point countless
times over the years in all sorts of venues. I knew exactly who I was talking
to in this interview: both the interviewer and the readership. We’ve all read,
understood, and accepted the fundamental validity of Manufacturing Consent and related media theories. My point wasn’t
to deny its validity but rather the opposite: to affirm its validity, but then
point out that one nonetheless should try and can sometimes succeed in
overcoming those constraints. That is a point

I made quite clearly here:

“These kinds of biases are cultural and
generalized, not absolute. . . . The
nature of theories of media bias isn’t that it’s impossible to ever inject
certain ideas into them. That’s just not the case. Exceptions happen. But to
the extent that you’re suggesting that most journalists would find it
uncomfortable and even damaging to their career to write critically of their
employers, of course that’s true.”

Three points about this:

(1) In most of the interview, I was talking about my
own personal experiences at Salon, the Guardian, and now with the Intercept:
not generalizing to everyone’s experience. That’s because the context of the
interview was the launch of our new media organization, and many of the
questions which Michael asked were about whether I have been able, and would
continue to be able, to maintain editorial independence and journalistic
freedom despite working in conjunction with corporate structures. I have been
able to do so, and tried to explain why and how.

I don’t remotely think my situation is
common, or that all or even most independent journalists enjoy the same
leverage, or that my own experience proves these constraints aren’t real and formidable.
Of course they are real and formidable, and I repeatedly said so – both here
and elsewhere. But I also know that I would never allow any media institution,
or anyone else, to interfere with my journalistic freedom, and that was the
point I was making. To me, that was the primary point of the interview: to explain
my experiences doing journalism with these media organizations. So that’s what
I spoke about.(2)In general, I dislike theories of defeatism:
telling other people that certain institutions or constraints are so formidable
and absolute in their design that it’s literally impossible to successfully
exploit or infiltrate them. I want to encourage people, especially independent
journalists, to do the opposite: to think about how to exploit these
institutions, to infiltrate them, to use them to one’s advantage, to overcome
their repressive structures.

There are all sorts of reasons why one might
try and fail. That’s because these institutions are indeed formidable, and they
are designed to be self-protective, and most people will lack the leverage to
defy their dictates for a whole variety of unavoidable reasons. But many people
do use these institutions to be heard, to do the kind of impressive journalism
they want to do, to find ways to inject prohibited and even subversive ideas
into the discourse they produce. I think most people are aware of the reasons
that’s so hard to do. But I also hope people will think about how to do that
successfully. I want to encourage, not discourage, people to think about how to
overcome limits and shatter these constraints.(3) I do believe the internet has shifted the
balance of power in journalism as compared to, say, 20 or 30 years ago –
probably not radically, but definitely substantially. It is simply no longer
necessary to go to work for a large media organization if you want to build a
decent-sized readership. There are journalists, commentators and activists from
around the world who have never been employed by a large media organization who
have amassed thousands, or tens of thousands, or even more Twitter followers –
more than many if not most of the full-time reporters and columnists for those established
media organizations.

In a world where media organizations are
financially struggling and are desperate for online buzz and traffic, that
vests these independent journalists and activists with real leverage. Large
media organizations need them more than they need these large media
organizations, and so they can often set the terms of their work. I hope
independent journalists don’t assume that they’re destined for failure if they
try to use the resources and platforms of these large media organizations to be
heard, because I don’t think they are. Many of them are succeeding at this, and
I hope more do.

* * * * *

Large
corporate media organizations are almost always going to be instruments for
narrowing the scope of ideas and ensuring that the views which serve their
institutional interests are promoted, favored and amplified. That’s intrinsic
to their design and purpose. That proposition is self-evident and not in
dispute. I certainly did not intend to dispute it, and don’t think I did.

But
I also think that no human system is invulnerable. They all have weaknesses to
exploit, and there are always new and innovative strategies that people can
devise to undermine them if they believe that doing so is possible. I know it’s
extremely difficult, and a huge challenge, and will often result in failure. Many
of the independent journalists I admire most do their work entirely outside of
these institutions, and that is a vital and obviously valid choice. But it’s
not the only choice, and I want independent journalists devoted to the right
values and ideals to maximize the strategic options they consider viable.

Thanks
again for the critique. It’s always nice to have pushback from this direction –